Before Justices Saitta, Pickering, and Hardesty. Opinion by Justice Hardesty.
In this appeal, the Court reviewed the district court’s decisions resolving a property division and a spousal support issue that arose in a divorce decree. The Court addressed the factors for determining the community interest in a separate property business under the California cases Pereira v. Pereira, 103 P. 488 (Cal. 1909), and Van Camp v. Van Camp, 199 P. 885 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921), and agreed with the district court’s determination that the husband was not entitled to an award of an interest in the business. The husband also sought review of the district court’s rejection of spousal support. In addressing the award of spousal support, the district court did not conduct any evidentiary hearings on the spousal support request and failed to expressly analyze the factors for determining spousal support set forth in Sprenger v. Sprenger, 110 Nev. 855, 878 P.2d 284 (1994), and NRS 125.150(8). The Court found that the district court abused its discretion in making its determination not to award spousal support to either party, because it was unclear from the record if or how the district court applied the relevant case law or statutory factors to the limited evidence that was before it. In making this determination, the Court pointed out that all the evidentiary hearings conducted by the district court focused on the division of property between the parties, and that the district court failed to hear evidence on the support issue. The Court reasoned that it was therefore difficult to determine on what basis the district court arrived at its conclusion that neither party was entitled to spousal support. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. (Brent Keele, Associate in the Reno office of McDonald Carano Wilson.)
